Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd: Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 05 August 2010 12:22 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 227003A699A for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 05:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.935
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.100, BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FfiQ9iTbbGf5 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 05:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.106]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D1B3A6987 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 05:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id o75CNBXT010932 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:23:11 +0200
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o75CNA2X025046 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:23:11 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id o75CN7Df021806 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:23:09 +0200
Message-ID: <4C5AAD2B.3070508@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:23:07 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: autoconf@ietf.org
References: <4C528979.7010006@oracle.com> <201008040756.04650.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <4C596602.1060308@earthlink.net> <201008051039.03011.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <AANLkTikWgoUHeJsZwWDViVyavWXjvtLfffrosHPcCPya@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikWgoUHeJsZwWDViVyavWXjvtLfffrosHPcCPya@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd: Forgotone [Was: RFC 5889)
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:22:46 -0000
Le 05/08/2010 11:47, Emmanuel Baccelli a écrit : > I share the opinion that this discussion polluted by the unanswered > question "what is the definition of a router?". There are too many > different answers to this question (Thomas mentioned some of them in > Maastricht, and other definitions exist, I'm sure). > > Maybe it would be easier to focus on the counterpart instead, and > consider the question "what is the definition of a host?". That is a good question, looking at it the other way around. > It seems to me that the devices we are aiming to configure are > typically capable of things that hosts can't do (including, for > instance, forwarding traffic on behalf of other devices, if > necessary). > > So the immediate conclusion that most folks make, is: "if it is not a > host, then it is a router". Difficult to blame anyone for making such > a deduction, I agree. I think this logic "if it is not a host then it is a router" is not a right logic. It could be, for example, a multi-homed device, not routing, yet multiple interfaces, etc. If it is not a host then it could be a multi-homed host, a router, and probably more. > as the IETF defined a world where you only have these two choices. > So I think, in that sense, we are indeed configuring routers. > > Now, if I understand Charlie's point correctly, he raises the > question: "what of the special case where the device we are > configuring is really a host?". This question was already raised some > time ago in this working group (at least while we were discussing the > late MANET architecture draft). If I remember correctly, the rough > consensus at that point in time was: "hosts are considered to be > connected to a MANET only through a router, and thus, the MANET can > be considered as comprising of only routers". > > This architectural consideration thus separated the issue of > "configuring routers" from the issue of "configuring hosts" in this > context, and the rough consensus was that we would first focus on > configuring routers. Which lead us to where we are now. > > However, in the end, Charlie is right: we do want to configure the > hosts too ;) :-) sounds good. How about us wanting to configure an "AUTOCONF node"? (a little bit of a Router, of a Host, and of a MANET Router). > So do we want to stick to the original plan (i.e. focus first on > router configuration) or do we want to address instead both router > and host configuration, all at once? I guess this is what it boils > down to at this point. I will be happier if it boiled down to defining an "AUTOCONF node" or entity, or so. > > As far as I am concerned, I think it makes sense to consider the > issue of "configuring routers" from the issue of "configuring hosts" > separately because hosts are and routers have very different > capabilities. I'm also fine with sticking with the original plan, > i.e. focus first on router configuration. But on the way towards > solutions for router configuration, I think we should be careful not > to forget the big picture: in the end we want to also configure > hosts. In particular, this means that if an efficient router > configuration solution can easily be extended to become an efficient > host configuration solution, all the better ;) Reads good. Alex > > > Emmanuel > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Henning Rogge > <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de > <mailto:henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>> wrote: > > On Wed August 4 2010 15:07:14 Charles E. Perkins wrote: >> Hello Henning, >> >> On 8/3/2010 10:55 PM, Henning Rogge wrote: >>> If you run a part of the routing protocol to connect the "host" > to the >>> MANET, it's a router in my oppinion (Ripple would call it a > leaf node >>> for example). >> >> What if your host gets an address by running "autoconf.exe", which >> is not a routing program? > Does your host set up a route towards the next router and maintains > it if the topology data from the router changes ? If yes I would say > it's a primitive router too. If no, it's not. > >>> If the node just use DHCP or similar protocols to get it's >>> address without being modified to work with the MANET, it's no >>> router > (and don't >>> need the autoconf address model). >> >> What if the host does not? Or, do you mean to say that this >> discussion is a way to legislate that all hosts must use DHCP? > I don't think I ever said this. I just presented an example that the > address model is not necessary for running a node in a MANET that use > the autoconf address model. > > Yes, you CAN use it... but you don't need to. > >>> The autoconf model is NOT the only way for a host to get an > address for >>> connection to a MANET. >> >> The autoconf model for getting addresses doesn't exist. I sure hope >> it isn't the only way to get an address. >> >> But suppose at some point there is an autoconf.exe. It should be a >> way for a host to get an address. Its connection to the MANET >> would, presumably allow it to use this address. Or, do you mean to >> say that "address allocation" == "connection"? > I don't see any reason why an autoconfiguration protocol developed by > this group would only run on interfaces of routers. > >>> If you have a router with a policy that limits the routers > functionality >>> (in terms of the routing protocol), you could just write a >>> compact/optimized version of the needed software part for it. >> >> main() { system ("get_address"); if (routing) fail(); /* My >> compact routing code */ } >> >> Am I a router? > I don't see any routing code of a routing protocol. But I don't see > your problem too. > >>>>> It should be done on the routers (but MANETs can and have > been run >>>>> with different address models), and it could be used for > hosts closely >>>>> attached to a MANET, but it's not necessary to do so. >>>> >>>> What is "it"? >>> >>> The autoconf address model should be used on routers (but you > could use a >>> different one) and it (the address model) could be used on > hosts attached >>> to a MANET, but it's not necessary to use the autoconf address > model on >>> hosts. >> >> It's necessary for hosts to adhere to the considerations detailed >> in the address model document. I'm not sure if this is the same as >> "using" it. > It might be necessary, depending on what software the host is > running. > >>>>> But in my opinion it is still better it's still better to > restrict the >>>>> title as suggested in the WG meeting consensus that to make > it too >>>>> generic. >>>> >>>> I can't imagine any non-political reason whatsoever for this. >>> >>> If we do otherwise we could have the same problems. People > would say "you >>> demand that any computer attached to your MANET use the > autoconf address >>> model. But we have to use DHCP, so your address model is wrong." >> >> This is a political argument not based on the needs of the >> addressability, connectivity, or goals of making an ad hoc network. >> Insofar as you may be nonetheless correct, I begin to believe that >> I have zero insight into the technical goals of the discussion. >> >>> (I don't say they are right, but we will get people with > strange comments >>> on the address model with both titles) >> >> Please tell me if my comments are "strange". > I think the problem you stated is that people can say "the title says > it's only for routers, so it is not enough for my usecase and I need > something different". > > If we not change the title we might get "the title says it's for all > nodes, but I cannot force my users to install a special interface > configuration on their smartphones, so I need something different." > > There are nodes in MANET that are a grey area between host and > router. Because of this we cannot make a clear statement on what > nodes the autoconf address model should be used. > > Most of the WG seems to think it's better to restrict the scope a > little bit more and let people use it for other things than the > defined scope if they think it's right (at least that's how I > understand the consensus of the group). > > Henning Rogge -- Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , > Fraunhofer-Institut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und > Ergonomie FKIE Kommunikationssysteme (KOM) Neuenahrer Straße 20, > 53343 Wachtberg, Germany Telefon +49 228 9435-961, Fax +49 228 9435 > 685 mailto:henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de > <mailto:henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> > http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de GPG: E1C6 0914 490B 3909 D944 F80D 4487 > C67C 55EC CFE0 > > _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing > list Autoconf@ietf.org <mailto:Autoconf@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf > > > > > _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing > list Autoconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a … Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Stan Ratliff
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Zach Shelby
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Zach Shelby
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments t… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 Erik Nordmark
- [Autoconf] Forgot one [Was: RFC 5889 Erik Nordmark
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 Erik Nordmark
- Re: [Autoconf] Forgot one [Was: RFC 5889 Erik Nordmark
- Re: [Autoconf] Forgot one [Was: RFC 5889 Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Henning Rogge
- [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifica… Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router (was: WC consensus… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router (was: WC consensus… Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Henning Rogge
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router (was: WC consensus… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router (was: WC consensus… Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Rogge Henning
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Autoconf] what's a router Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Thomas Heide Clausen
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modi… Emmanuel Baccelli